TexasCHLforum.com

govnor wrote:Amazing how much blood can come out of your hand...

All of it, if you're not careful.

Venus Pax wrote:

govnor wrote:His doctor told him though...that if he was an illegal alien it would have been taken care of since the federal government pays for them. Since he was just a regular old American though...pay up.

A sad state of affairs.

The "federal government" doesn't pay for it, WE DO. But illegal immigration is a whole different subject...

Regarding CHL training, this issue brings up one of my major complaints about how the law is written. I think the distinction bewtween SA and NSA pushes people away from revolvers, a much safer option for the great majority of CHL applicants.

Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

Photoman wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:

govnor wrote:His doctor told him though...that if he was an illegal alien it would have been taken care of since the federal government pays for them. Since he was just a regular old American though...pay up.

A sad state of affairs.

The "federal government" doesn't pay for it, WE DO. But illegal immigration is a whole different subject...

Regarding CHL training, this issue brings up one of my major complaints about how the law is written. I think the distinction bewtween SA and NSA pushes people away from revolvers, a much safer option for the great majority of CHL applicants.

Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

WELL...this is actually a "gun guy." I know...don't ask me. I don't know why he did it either. It just goes to show that if you aren't paying attention that an "unloaded" gun can be deadly. In fact, I treat all my guns as if they are loaded at all times. Yeah, liberal rhetoric. I've never pointed ANY gun at anyone whether it was loaded or not. You just don't do it unless you are dumb enough to point it towards your own hand.

I'm so with you on the revolver thing though. As I was replying to someone else that doesn't feel comfortable carrying an auto locked and loaded. A revolver is a perfect choice for most people. It's overlooked a lot of times because of the stigma of it. In fact, at the CHL class, the people packing a 10 or more round clip go first. If you are a revolver person they put you at the end and recommend that you test with an auto so that you can carry both. I can see how that could scare some normally non gun people off. Personally, I like revolvers a LOT.

Photoman wrote:
Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

I don't buy this. If the 4 rules are followed. Any modern gun is safe to carry. Guns aren't dangerous, people are. The SA/NSA distinction in our CHL laws is stupid.

Liberty wrote:

Photoman wrote:
Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

I don't buy this. If the 4 rules are followed. Any modern gun is safe to carry. Guns aren't dangerous, people are. The SA/NSA distinction in our CHL laws is stupid.

That's the root of the problem. People get careless and complacent with their tools. "It'll never happen to me", famous last words.

HighVelocity wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Photoman wrote:
Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

I don't buy this. If the 4 rules are followed. Any modern gun is safe to carry. Guns aren't dangerous, people are. The SA/NSA distinction in our CHL laws is stupid.

That's the root of the problem. People get careless and complacent with their tools. "It'll never happen to me", famous last words.

You got that right! Distractions can certainly lead to problems as well...

I always thought that if I was in doubt, stop what you are doing, take a breath, think about it, and check it anyway, again...Just to be sure in your mind...

Liberty wrote:

Photoman wrote:
Lets face it, most people out there carrying guns are not "gun people" and would be MUCH safer with a good double-action revolver.

I don't buy this. If the 4 rules are followed. Any modern gun is safe to carry. Guns aren't dangerous, people are. The SA/NSA distinction in our CHL laws is stupid.

Photoman isn't saying that the guns (SA's) are "less safe". He is saying that some people are less safe with them.

The SA/NSA distinction in the carry law might be debateable. But there is no doubt whatsoever that revolvers are easier to handle than SA's, easier to check and verify "clear", have fewer controls (to confuse someone with) and are more easily mastered by people with limited upper body strength who may have difficulty racking a slide.

At my recent CHL renewal class, there was an idiot who couldn't figure out how to lock the slide back on the gun he was getting ready to qualify with. While asking for help, he is sweeping the muzzle all over the place, including (briefly) in MY direction.

As stupid as this guy was, he would be less likely to be "stumped" by the cylinder release of a revolver.

And the class I took was completely inadequate as to instructing people in safe handling of their guns.

I am amazed that the number of actual accidental shootings is as low as it is.

And the class I took was completely inadequate as to instructing people in safe handling of their guns.

Is it the instructors job to teach people how to operate their weapons?

If you're going to get a CHL, you should already be well versed in the ways of safe gun handling BEFORE you get to the class.

HighVelocity wrote:

And the class I took was completely inadequate as to instructing people in safe handling of their guns.

Is it the instructors job to teach people how to operate their weapons?

If you're going to get a CHL, you should already be well versed in the ways of safe gun handling BEFORE you get to the class.

There was one in my class that I dont think ever handled(Let alone shot) the gun they used to qualify. I would even be willing to bet that the gun was older than she was. She even had a negligent discharge that hit between themselves and the person they where standing next to. I am of the opinion that the CHL class should not be the first time you shoot your firearm. If you are going to borrow a firearm from a friend to take the class that fine. Just go out and shoot it a few times and know how itworks before you get to the CHL class.

HighVelocity wrote:

And the class I took was completely inadequate as to instructing people in safe handling of their guns.

Is it the instructors job to teach people how to operate their weapons?

If it isn't, it should be.

HighVelocity wrote: If you're going to get a CHL, you should already be well versed in the ways of safe gun handling BEFORE you get to the class.

Of course you should. That's the ideal. But in the real world, what if someone is not "well versed in the ways of safe gun handling" before he gets to class? Should that person pass and get his CHL? Or should they fail, and have to re-take the class after getting remedial instruction?

Believe me, out of a couple of hundred thousand people holding CHL's, some of them are not "well versed in the ways of safe gun handling" when they show up for class. So for these people I ask, "What is the right thing to do?"

I understand that accidents are very rare. So whatever we are doing now can't be all that bad.

But I think that if someone is going to carry a concealed handgun while sharing the street or the mall with me and my family, they should be required to know how to safely handle their gun.

This is the primary reason I never chose to become a CHL instructor....I would be scared and likely run off all of my business. I have a great deal of patience and think I am a pretty nice fellow....that all changes if a gun is pointed at me.

I have to agree that a CHL class that requires the instructor to take time teaching gun handling skills is at least a distraction to others taking the course. Safe gun handling should have not be taught on the day of qualification.

Expecting gun handling lessons at the CHL course is roughly the equivalent of expecting a driving lesson from the DPS employee giving a driving test...it just isn't the way it is supposed to happen.

jbirds1210 wrote:This is the primary reason I never chose to become a CHL instructor....I would be scared and likely run off all of my business. I have a great deal of patience and think I am a pretty nice fellow....that all changes if a gun is pointed at me.

I have to agree that a CHL class that requires the instructor to take time teaching gun handling skills is at least a distraction to others taking the course. Safe gun handling should have not be taught on the day of qualification.

Bingo!!!

My grandaddy once told me that if a man points a gun at or near you...

Knock 'em down to the ground real hard, and then ask them if its loaded...

jbirds1210 wrote: Safe gun handling should have not be taught on the day of qualification.

Fine. But if someone doesn't already know safe gun handling, they should FLUNK the qualification, no matter what score they shoot.

jbirds1210 wrote: Expecting gun handling lessons at the CHL course is roughly the equivalent of expecting a driving lesson from the DPS employee giving a driving test...it just isn't the way it is supposed to happen.

As long as people who do not know how to safely handle their guns are flunked, I have no problem with that.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote: Safe gun handling should have not be taught on the day of qualification.

Fine. But if someone doesn't already know safe gun handling, they should FLUNK the qualification, no matter what score they shoot.

jbirds1210 wrote: Expecting gun handling lessons at the CHL course is roughly the equivalent of expecting a driving lesson from the DPS employee giving a driving test...it just isn't the way it is supposed to happen.

As long as people who do not know how to safely handle their guns are flunked, I have no problem with that.

Sounds like we are in perfect agreement. If someone is rude enough to show up and be dangerous......they should pay the fee to the instructor and go home with a hard lesson in life.

The gun handling in my CHL class was downright scary...INCLUDING THE INSTRUCTOR!

She was showing the class some different guns, including the Sig she was carrying in a fanny pack. Cleared the gun to show it, the when done reloaded and didn't de-cock. Stuffed it back in the pack and 'bout gave me a heart attack. I really should've walked out...

On the firing line, there were many with SA's that clearly did not know how to operate them. Applicants should be denied testing if they can't operate their weapon safely.